Creationists

[UltimateReality]

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?

Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?

You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.

Hawly, when you have no evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know".

 

[UltimateReality]

But mutations happen. Why are your gawds such incompetent designers?

Asked and answered

Not true. Why not be honest and try.

True, about a hundred times over. Might want to get that learning disability checked out.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

 

[Hollie]

Hawly took exception to the word "machine". Her hatred of science and blind allegiance to materialism prevents her from embracing the truth, regardless of the effect it might have on her psychosis.

The Christian creationist industry has effectively preyed upon gullibility and ignorance by adding anthropomorphism to their catalog of bad science and faulty characterizations of biological mechanisms. Both of the Christian creationist fundies in this thread are exploited by this. We see so often the horribly ignorant attempt at analogy whereby they question how it is that cars, buildings, etc., don’t self assemble and replicate as analogous to biological mechanisms. It’s these childish and naïve notions that are furthered by the Christian ministries and accepted as valid by the science illiterate. Christian ministries promote their revulsion of science by recruiting ignorant minions to further their cause.

Accepting the reason and rationality of science, observation, testing, etc., as the criteria for perception is not stripping away anything. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added sentience and a vast array of texture to emotions and perception that simpler animals do not. Human passion and emotions are a part of the wonder of humanity. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics as a price for those passions and emotions. It is helpful to know the foundation of human behavior, but blindly accepting ancient superstitious tales that instill irrational fear and ignorance is particularly furthering of humanity. Accepting and embracing rationality doesn’t strip humanity of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. And it is only in these types of discussions that abstractions of angry gawds are meted out by christian creationists who seek to impose their fears, superstitions and prejudices on others.

Yeah, except this video is from the BBC!! And they say machine about 100 times during it. You're in denial. So try again Spanky.

And except that the term "machine' as applied to biological mechanisms is meaningless.

Although. perhaps your attitude is that if the BBC uses the term about 100 times, it magically becomes true. It seems that belief in magic is a required component of Christian creationism

 

[Hollie]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

 

[Hollie]

Asked and answered

Not true. Why not be honest and try.

True, about a hundred times over. Might want to get that learning disability checked out.

This seems to be the tactic (obfuscation, denial and ignorance), that defines the christian creationist movement.

 

[Hollie]

To answer your question Enzymes being designed by altering their functions. The first Enzymes how or who designed them with functions to perform ?

Your denial of the evidence for design is predictable. What is the point of bringing up lying if you believe God is a fairytale and based on lies ?

You also have been challenged to present evidence for your naturalism you seem to have a problem doing so.

To respond to your designer enzymes: which gawds produced the first enzyme? Support your claim.

Science has not determined the precise biological mechanism that blossomed the first enzyme. Your default position is that one or more of your designer gawds did so, without providing a shred of evidence.

Your refusal to provide evidence of your claimed designer gawds is predictable. It has been the history of your posting: claims absent any evidence.

Hawly, when you have no evidence, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know".

When you having to contribute, it's apprppriate to be silent.

 

[Hollie]

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

What breeders have reached a dead end? Why do you make nonsensical claims that are without substance?

Once again for those not paying attention:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[newpolitics]

Do you notice a trend ?you keep coming up with excuses why you believe as you do.

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

Again, I don't see how this is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen. All it means is we don't have the capability to reproduce abiogenesis. Why would we? It is inconsequential, completely. Don't be such a moron in thinking this disproves the possibility of abiogenesis. The fact that we are ignorant to how life started precludes the possibility that we could reproduce it in a lab, don't you think? So, your argument is circular. If we knew how it happened, we would know how it happened...

 

[Hollie]

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

Why are you concerned with principles that flow from a worldview you believe is a lie? Stick to the stuff you know.

You are unable to offer principles that folow any rational nexus of evidence leading to a viable conclusion.

"The Gawds did it" is not an explanation for anyone but a christian fundie. Faith comes from emotional biases, misperceptions and logical errors. If they didn't, then faith would be logically sound and rational and it would no longer be faith. Reason and rationality as concepts and applications are both individual and collective. When reason and rationality are collective, they becomes knowledge. In the world of reason and rationality (to exclude the world of fear and superstition), collective knowledge will be held to a standard of evidence and proofs such that elements that are untrue will eventually be discarded and those that meet repeatable tests and confirmation will be retained. This can only come about by progressing forward in the pursuit of knowledge, and the only way to do that is to demand accountability from science and religious dogma alike. Blindly following the precepts of ancient books of unknown authors, suspect lineage, false superstition or inflexible dogma or the "because I say so", command is foolish and time wasting.

 

[Hollie]

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical “design” argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your “feelings”, as a concept, are basically no different from the “feelings” which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you “feel” (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:

a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.

I can’t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for “design” of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other “acts of gawds”. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a children’s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they’re evil sinners.

No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!

Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.

Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

Except that he hasn't, because he can't demonstrate that something didn't happen. Wow, he multiplied a few probabilities together, and voila! He knows that abiogenesis is impossible! What a dumbass.

Your response still shows a total and complete lack of understanding of the probabilistic problems facing abiogenesis. Your response basically amounts to Meyer is wrong because Meyer is wrong.

There is nothing to understand, shit-for-brains. Stop trying to make this seem like this is some deep enigmatic enquiry into something esoteric. I saw Meyer demonstrate his thinking in about 20 seconds. He multiplies a bunch of fractions representing the different possible combination of possible amino acids, and got a number. Wow! That is something else. Truly, a demonstration for the ages.

 

[Hollie]

Where are you even getting this from? It's like you read every other word, and then try and piece together what I might have said, and then respond to that. You are not even worth responding to sometimes.

I could have sworn Jesus said something about being humble, yet you act like a know-it-all, which is the ultimate irony, considering you have nothing to back any of your claims up!! It's truly fantastic.

" inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place."

Not being able to form a cell that can reproduce itself just shows scientists have no idea how life came about but you are sure it was not a product of design. You have nothing backing your claims of naturalism and I did give you evidence backing my claim.

Yeah it is tough responding to me because you have no answer for my questions and no rebuttals. I do read your words and respond to points you hint at because most of your posts are just rhetoric. like most people who try to debate with no evidence to support them.

Again, I don't see how this is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen. All it means is we don't have the capability to reproduce abiogenesis. Why would we? It is inconsequential, completely. Don't be such a moron in thinking this disproves the possibility of abiogenesis. The fact that we are ignorant to how life started precludes the possibility that we could reproduce it in a lab, don't you think? So, your argument is circular. If we knew how it happened, we would know how it happened...

It's a tactic of christian creationist to seize upon any gap in scientific knowledge as somehow being proof of the gawds.

One would think that the creationist ministries would be doing their own research in the fields of science and medicine as a way to prove that enzymes, for example, have evolved not by natural processes but by magical, supernatural means. The results of their studies could be posted in various scientific journals and be open to testing by others.... others without a predefined bias toward supermagicalism.

 

[newpolitics]

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

Btw, who said anything about accident. Is it an accident that gravity pulls matter together, forming stars? Is it an accident that a sodium ion (+) and a chloride ion (-) or attracted to each other, and when in close proximity, form a chemical bond? No. There are built-in attractive forces in this universe that set events in motion, without a designer, or a "will." This is all it takes for matter to be attracted to other matter, and eventually form what we call and know and experience as "life." The same attractive forces cause amino acids to form together, and for amino acids to couple together. I know Meyer has given you some probabilities to try and preclude this event from your imagination, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen because you think it is mathematically unlikely. As I said before, we don't have enough information to include in those mathematical descriptions about probabilities for those probabilities to actually mean anything. They are just guesses. Given enough time, abiogenesis is inevitable, and likely has happened and is happening in countless places around the universe. Your incredulity on this matter is your issue.

Wow! Just Wow!! Thanks NP. You just made the Design argument for fine tuning of the universe!!

And by the way, you have feebly attempted to present a necessity argument, which, if you actually read the book, you would know Meyer has easily refuted.

Oh, and how the fuck did I just make the fine tuning argument? All I stated was the obvious: that there exists natural forces in the universe. You just... make things up out of thin air, kind of like your imaginary intelligent designer. I see a connection here...

 

[Youwerecreated]

What evidence for designer gawds have you provided? You have been tasked with providing such evidence throughout this thread and you have never done that.

Isn't there something in christianity that says one shouldn't lie?

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So basically you're saying that because scientist haven't yet discovered everything there is to discover in the universe that it must be made by your invisible alien that you can't say where it is? A tad naïve, no?

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

 

[Youwerecreated]

In the rational world, (not one haunted by childish fears and superstitions of angry gawds and demons), we are forced to make conclusions regarding your nonsensical, supermagical “design” argument because irrational claims and irrational actions to similarly configured fears and superstitions can be disastrous. Your “feelings”, as a concept, are basically no different from the “feelings” which motivated Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and a host of other religious loons. How do we know what you “feel” (in spite of your suggestion that the gawds apparently communicate with you), is in fact truth? We are talking about the christian conception of designer gawds who:

a. Created an evil Satan before man was around to be evil
b. Drowned a world
c. Destroyed numerous peoples and cities throughout the Pentateuch
d. Demanded the death of his own kid
e. Will destroy the world again in an apocalypse.

I can’t help but note that your argument for designer gawds must necessarily include credit for “design” of disease, horrendous suffering by floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fire and other “acts of gawds”. We are also to learn from the other Christian fundie that your gawds actually manipulate cell biology as a means to snuff out sinners. How cool, little Johnny and Jane struggling with childhood cancer in a children’s hospital are being snuffed out by your gawds because they’re evil sinners.

No wonder your christian creationist beliefs cause you such intellectual trauma!

Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.

Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.

You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie how come the science community can genetically alter food and animals but they cannot show macroevolution in doing so ? Why do these genetically altered plants and animals not survive and produce a new sustainable species that would survive on it's own ?

Why do breeders reach dead ends???

Yep another question they will avoid like the plague.

What breeders have reached a dead end?

 

[Hollie]

Typical irrelevant post. The topic was "Fine Tuning of the Universe". Your inability to stay on topic shows evidence of a learning disability.

Facts are always a difficult subject for cultists to come to terms with.

You hit the nail on the head for once hollie to bad it is you that is the cultist.

I had every expectation you and the other fundie would slither away.

 

[Hollie]

No. He is saying the discoveries they have made disprove macroevolution so if the Naturalists want to stick to naturalism as an explanation, its time for them to look for another theory that science actually supports, not a 160 year old fairy tale based on bird beaks.

No, he's actually saying he is clueless as macroevolution has not been disproved.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The fact of evolution is not disputed by science. Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position.

We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. That's the outline. But against all that, you counter with "The Gawds Did It". Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunology and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.

Dr Douglas Theobald is an Idelogue,he presents micro adaptations as macroevolution. Look the whole science community except for the loons know there has never been a case of macroevolution being observed. Hollie talk origins will decompose your brain.


A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
by Ashby Camp
Introduction Part 1

© 2001 Ashby L. Camp. All Rights Reserved.


. . . Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries,
And daub their natural faces unaware
More and more, from the first similitude.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Leigh VII.821-22


NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.

am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. Douglas Theobald, on the other hand, is convinced that all organisms (except the first) descended from a single, original species.

In “29 Evidences for Macroevolution,” Dr. Theobald sets forth the evidence that he believes proves scientifically that all organisms share the same biological ancestor. In this critique, I argue that his evidence is insufficient to establish that proposition.

Read the rest here. - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

I thought the science link would send the Christian fundies scrambling.

As it turns out, their only option is to link to another Christian fundie. From the fundie link:

"I am convinced that various groups of organisms had an independent, nonevolutionary origin. More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God."

Well sure, "the gawds did it"


Anti-evolutionist Ashby Camp has penned a critique of these "29 Evidences of Macroevolution," which can be found posted at TrueOrigin. Camp's critique is well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article). Although I intend to address Camp's concerns in totality, currently I can only devote a limited amount of time to this effort. In the meantime, this partial response will suffice. I would like to thank Camp for his congenial criticism. It has given me the impetus to rework and expand the "29 Evidences," and the result is a more comprehensive, clearer, and stronger article.

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there. In the following response, Camp's words are indented in grey boxes, set apart from mine. Material that Camp has quoted in his criticism is also in the grey boxes, surrounded by quotes, and followed by the pertinent external reference.

Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:

1. Straw man arguments 2. Red herrings 3. Self-contradictions 4. Equivocation 5. Two wrongs make a right 6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident 7. Ignoratio elenchi 8. Naive theological assumptions 9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics 10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method 11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses" 12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory 13. Misleading mis-quotes 14. Fallacies of accent 15. Distortion of scientific controversies 16. Arguments from authority 17. False analogies

The repeated use of these errors and others in Camp's "Critique" will be abundantly clear in the following rebuttal.

Note: Since the time I wrote this reply, Mr. Camp has responded to this in a shorter article entitled "Camp answers Theobald." The elements which I felt deserve some mention are included here enclosed in green boxes.